No, my argument was not about "protecting gay criminals." My argument was to point out that "a living will" will not give homosexuals "all the protection they need." In addition, it is troubling that you believe that the fifth ammendment exists solely to protect criminals.
I will acknowledge there are homosexuals who seek validation from the public. However, many others simply want the same protections as heterosexuals and don't give a damn whether they are accepted or not. Civil unions, etc. do not grant the same rights and protections as marriages. If marriage is granted more protections/rights, those will not necessarily trickle over to rights civil unions possess.
Allowing gays to get married does not damage marriage. How does homosexuals getting married affect your marriage? I am not throwing the "majority to the wolves for the benefit of the minority" for the very reason that I do not feel like my marriage would be cheapened by gays getting married, and I doubt that husbands will love their wives any less (and vice versa) if homosexuals can get married. I do not believe that marriage is unjust; I only believe that it is unjust to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.
If you want to change the way things are, you have to prove your point. You sound like a bratty 14 year old shouting "why should I" to her parents, when in fact she need to convince her parents of the need for change, not the other way around.
And as for cheapening marriage, how do you tell your virgin 13 year old daughter to save it for marriage if she snorts at the word because marriage now means whatever you want it to mean?
As far as protections go, gay couples are not normal couples, they should not demand to be treated as normal. 40 years ago homosexuality was accepted as a disorder. Now, because of marketing and lobbying, we should change a tradition that predates recorded history.
You sell your culture off cheaply.